Discussion Title: Is the United Nations the best forum to tackle climate change?

1. The United Nations is the best forum to tackle climate change.
1.1. Con: Other forums can be more effective than the UN.
1.1.1. Pro: Negotiations should be structured to allow major contributors of greenhouse gases to tackle the issue rather than trying to accommodate many parties.
1.1.1.1. Pro: The world’s top three emitters of greenhouse gases- China, USA, EU- contribute [14 times](https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/04/interactive-chart-explains-worlds-top-10-emitters-and-how-theyve-changed) the emissions of the bottom 100.
1.1.1.2. Con: This would exacerbate the problem of smaller countries not having a say in shaping climate policy.
1.2. Pro: Climate change is an international issue that can only be effectively dealt with on an international level.
1.2.1. Pro: Air pollution is a [transboundary problem](https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/2599XXX/page009.html).
1.2.1.1. Pro: Deteriorating air quality in [South Korea](https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Asia-Insight/Killer-dust-pollutes-South-Korea-s-relations-with-China) is at least partially to blame on China.
1.2.2. Pro: The UN includes the majority of countries, which makes it one of the most influential organizations in the world.
1.2.2.1. Pro: The UNFCCC has secured participation of [197](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change#Parties) parties. This is cooperation that could not be achieved on a national scale.
1.2.2.1.1. Pro: While flawed, the United Nations has proven to be an effective forum for coordinating international action on issues of common concern.
1.2.2.1.1.1. Pro: The [Sustainable Development Goals](https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300) - formerly the Millenium Development Goals - are an example of this.
1.2.2.1.1.2. Con: The UN is slow, bureaucratic, and full of red tape.
1.2.2.1.1.2.1. Con: The first car was slow and unreliable but that does not mean a car is not, in principle, a good thing.
1.2.2.1.1.2.2. Pro: The UN is inefficient as it is run mostly by the USA. This means that if the UN voted to put sanctions against an ally of the USA that was breaking the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it would most likely not go through and the same goes for other countries that the USA favours.
1.2.2.1.1.2.2.1. Pro: This allows for the cherry picking of issues due to the dominance of the United States in funding the UN.
1.2.2.1.1.2.2.1.1. Con: The USA's [strongest ally](https://www.quora.com/Is-Israel-the-strongest-American-ally-in-the-Middle-East) in the middle east is Israel, and they have a [close and supportive relationship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations), but Israel still received more UN Human Rights condemnations than the rest of the world combined. This shows that the US is unable to cherry pick Human Rights issues.
1.2.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1. Pro: The UNHRC has condemned Israel [more than the rest of the world’s countries combined](https://www.unwatch.org/report-in-9-years-existence-unhrc-condemned-israel-more-times-than-rest-of-world-combined/), [despite](https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/2016_ITF_Human_Rights_Index_2016-01.pdf) [most](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices) [indexes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World) not listing Israel as a top Human Rights offender.
1.2.2.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1. Con: [Israel deserves condemnation](https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/), and as one of the longest running and most prominent conflicts in the world, the Israel/Palestine conflict deserves the extra attention.
1.2.2.1.1.2.2.2. Con: The UN sets a [22%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Funding) limit on contributions to the Regular Budget, based on the relative capacity of each country to pay, measured by its gross national income \(GNI\). This is designed so that countries with more money pay more, but the UN is not dependent on any one member to finance its operations.
1.2.2.1.1.2.2.3. Pro: The US contributes [$10 billion USD \(22%\)](https://www.cfr.org/article/funding-united-nations-what-impact-do-us-contributions-have-un-agencies-and-programs) of the UN's regular budget and is the biggest contributor \([$1.6 billion USD / 9.3%](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-countries-contributing-to-the-united-nations.html)\) to the Voluntary Budget.
1.2.2.1.1.2.2.4. Con: The US is not able to use its majority funding to influence the main decision making body of the UN: the General Assembly.
1.2.2.1.1.2.2.4.1. Pro: The [General Assembly votes to approve the regular budget](https://research.un.org/en/docs/budget/bodies), which means that the US cannot direct its contributions based on its own political interests.
1.2.2.1.1.2.2.4.1.1. Pro: The [General Assembly](http://www.un.org/en/ga/) decides on all resolutions by vote, requiring a two-thirds majority to pass. Nation-state agendas will not succeed unless supported by most of the world.
1.2.2.1.1.2.2.4.1.1.1. Pro: By each nation in the UN following their own agenda, the outcome of their discussions is most likely a resolution that shares common ground among most members. Collective good might be little, but is an equally shared win for almost everyone altogether.
1.2.2.1.1.2.2.4.2. Pro: The [Fifth Committee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Fifth_Committee) and the [Audit Board](http://www.un.org/en/auditors/board/membership.shtml) are central in creating the budget, but the US is not a member of either and so is unable to directly influence the proposed budget.
1.3. Pro: The UN currently leads in battling climate change.
1.3.1. Pro: The UN achieved the [Paris Agreement](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35073297), achieving consensus among nearly 200 countries for the first time in history.
1.3.1.1. Con: The UN is due to loose a key polluter from the agreement, [the USA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement), in November 2020.
1.3.1.1.1. Con: Donald Trump's America is increasingly isolationist. Its decision to leave UN bodies is less a meaningful condemnation of the UN and more consistent with their current nationalistic foreign policy of leaving international agreements/bodies.
1.3.1.1.1.1. Pro: America has left [climate change agreements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement), [trade partnerships](https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/why-trump-killed-tpp-why-it-matters-you-n710781), and even [questioned](https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/trump-s-first-foreign-trip/donald-trump-nato-why-his-silence-article-5-big-deal-n765011) their NATO membership.
1.3.1.1.2. Con: The [international response](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement#International_response) to the US withdrawal was a strong reaffirmation of their commitment to the agreement.
1.3.1.1.2.1. Con: As the US is one of the main contributors to pollution, their withdrawal from the agreement means that the reaffirmation to the commitment of other countries will have little significance in preventing climate change as it is insufficient without the US taking steps to reduce emissions as well.
1.3.1.1.2.1.1. Pro: The US is the 2nd largest contributor to [CO2](https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html) emissions globally.
1.3.1.1.2.1.2. Con: The USA makes around a [15%](https://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/all-worlds-greenhouse-gas-emissions-one-awesome-interactive-pie-chart.html) of total emissions and China 25%. The Paris Agreement will be on track if emissions are reduced by [50%](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/we-must-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions-to-net-zero-or-face-more-floods) by 2030. Therefore, the Paris Agreement can still be met, even if the USA, China, or both dropped out.
1.3.1.1.2.1.2.1. Pro: If a single country lags behind, they could be boycotted causing economic slowdown and decreased emissions.
1.3.1.1.2.1.2.1.1. Pro: The USA's GDP is [over 10% exports](https://www.statista.com/statistics/258779/us-exports-as-a-percentage-of-gdp/), which could be heavily reduced if worldwide public opinion and international sanctions turn against the sole polluter.
1.3.1.1.2.1.2.1.2. Pro: The [Economic slowdown in 2008 was the main reason](https://www.iflscience.com/environment/recession-real-reason-reduced-emissions/) for the decreased CO₂ emissions in the USA around the same time.
1.3.1.1.2.1.3. Con: The US has reduced emissions [more than any other country](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/).
1.3.1.1.2.1.3.1. Con: The US Energy Information Administration estimated that emissions will actually rise over the next two years.[In 2018, the agency forecasts a 1.1 percent increase, and in 2019, it projects a 0.2 percent increase](https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jun/18/environmental-protection-agency/are-greenhouse-emissions-down-under-donald-trump-e/). This is may be due to Donald Trump removing environmental protections introduced by Barack Obama.
1.3.1.1.2.1.3.2. Con: US emission reductions are [mainly due](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Electrical_Generation_1950-2016.png) to natural gas replacing coal. Whilst natural gas emits [50%](https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/is-natural-gas-clean/) less emissions than coal, it is not renewable or fully clean, and so is not sustainable in the long term.
1.3.1.1.2.1.3.2.1. Pro: Fracking harms the environment.
1.3.1.1.2.1.3.2.1.1. Pro: -> See discussion #7587: Fracking should be banned.
1.3.1.1.2.1.3.2.1.2. Pro: Shale drilling and fracking are poorly understood at this point, and not regulated enough. Therefore, we don't know how much air pollution is leaking from fracking wells.
1.3.1.1.2.1.3.2.1.2.1. Pro: States like Colorado have seen tremendous [spikes in air pollution](https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/fracking/) due to fracking wells.
1.3.1.1.2.1.3.2.1.3. Pro: Fracking releases methane gas, which is [84](https://metamag.org/2017/12/07/methane-the-greenhouse-gas-86-times-worse-that-co2-finally-targeted-by-meps-for-inclusion-in-climate-plans/) times worse for the environment than the C02 released.
1.3.1.1.2.1.3.2.2. Pro: Even a small accidental leakage in the process of extracting and utilizing natural gas can negate its benefits compared to coal. Even if the optimistic 1.6% national leak rate claimed by the gas industry is true, it’s enough to [erode nearly half](https://energypost.eu/wind-solars-achilles-heel-methane-meltdown-porter-ranch-means-energy-transition/) of the climate-saving advantages.
1.3.1.1.2.1.3.2.3. Con: With more than [100 years of natural gas supply](https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2017/09/24/why-u-s-natural-gas-prices-will-remain-low/#51d6570e3783) in the US, there is plenty of time to transition to renewables.
1.3.1.1.2.1.3.2.4. Pro: Natural gas still emits [0.572 kg](https://www.wingas.com/fileadmin/Wingas/WINGAS-Studien/Energieversorgung_und_Energiewende_en.pdf) CO2 per kWh. With US electricity consumption around [12MWh/capita](https://www.alternative-energies.net/how-to-power-a-city-of-100-000-people-using-only-renewable-energy/), that's 7t/capita. 7t already exceeds the EU average of [6.8t/capita](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29239194) and is not far from China's 7.2t/capita.
1.3.1.1.2.1.3.3. Pro: The [United States Climate Alliance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Climate_Alliance) \(covering 50% of the U.S. population and over 50% of GDP\) are effectively continuing with Paris Agreement at the state level.
1.3.1.1.3. Con: Despite this, there has been some strong support at [state and other local levels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Climate_Alliance).
1.3.1.1.4. Con: -> See 1.3.1.1.2.1.3.
1.3.1.2. Pro: The Paris Agreement is the only global pact stipulating action on temperature rises. [If scientists are right](https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229), this could save planet earth and therefore be the most important agreement ever made.
1.3.2. Pro: Since 1992, the [UNFCCC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change) has helped get nations to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
1.3.2.1. Pro: UNFCCC created the legally binding [Kyoto Protocol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol).
1.3.2.1.1. Pro: Out of 38 countries that signed up, 36 [succeeded](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2093579-was-kyoto-climate-deal-a-success-figures-reveal-mixed-results/) in meeting the target: reducing their mean annual greenhouse gas emissions from 2008-2012 by an average of 5% relative to the levels seen in 1990.
1.3.2.1.1.1. Con: [The US and Canada failed](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2093579-was-kyoto-climate-deal-a-success-figures-reveal-mixed-results/).
1.3.2.1.2. Pro: Overall, [they surpassed their commitment](http://www.alphr.com/environment/1003699/climate-change-figures-show-kyoto-protocol-was-a-success-or-do-they) by 2.4 gigatonnes of CO2 per year.
1.3.2.1.3. Con: Ten countries achieved their targets only by buying carbon credits. This means that [0.3 GtCO2 per year of the claimed reductions were not true cuts.](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2093579-was-kyoto-climate-deal-a-success-figures-reveal-mixed-results/)
1.3.2.1.4. Pro: This success set the stage for the Paris Agreement.
1.3.3. Pro: Through the UNFCCC \([unfccc.int](http://unfccc.int)\), the UN has called on nations and stakeholders to utilize climate change adaption as an opportunity to build a better world for all.
1.3.3.1. Pro: The UNFCCC \(United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change\), is "[the main international treaty on climate change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change)".
1.3.4. Pro: The [Montreal Protocol](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol) stopped the ozone hole growing over Antarctica, and was the first [unanimiously ratified international agreement](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol#cite_note-12).
1.3.4.1. Pro: The Montreal Protocol is [considered the most successful](http://www.igsd.org/worlds-most-successful-environmental-treaty-turns-25/) international environmental agreement to date.
1.3.4.2. Pro: This treaty was signed very quickly for an international treaty, with only 14 years lapsing between a basic scientific research discovery \(1973\) and the international agreement signed \(1985 & 1987\).
1.3.5. Pro: IPCC creates scientific [reports](https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/) on climate change that have more authority through their international cooperation and by being generated with a consensus through a UN-organisation.
1.3.6. Con: This battle has been largely ineffective, as recent [studies](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/10/ipcc-report-climate-change-impacts-forests-emissions/) illustrate that climate change impacts are worse than we previously expected.
1.4. Con: When a key country withdraws from or does not engage with UN initiatives, it encourages other countries to follow suit at risk of being uncompetitive economically or militarily.
1.4.1. Pro: The UN [worries](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44330709) that the US pulling out of the Paris Agreement, for example, will have a corrosive effect, such as other countries following suit.
1.4.1.1. Con: Since the US signaled its intent to withdraw in 2017, [no other countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Withdrawal_from_Agreement) have made a similar announcement.
1.4.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.3.1.1.
1.4.2. Pro: Countries build their diplomacy on reciprocity.
1.5. Pro: Countries are more likely to comply with climate policies when they are under international pressure.
1.5.1. Con: Due to the lack of international enforcement measures, national governments are more likely to respond to pressure from domestic groups regarding climate change.
1.5.1.1. Pro: There is no international police force or judiciary to deal with non-compliance with the UNFCCC.
1.5.1.1.1. Con: The [International Court of Justice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice) is tasked to settle international disputes.
1.5.1.1.2. Con: The UN Security Council can already impose sanctions on countries that do not comply with other UN measures. This could be extended to the UNFCCC as well.
1.5.1.1.3. Pro: The UNFCCC [Enforcement Branch](https://unfccc.int/process/kyoto-protocol/compliance-under-kyoto-protocol/introduction) is largely toothless and cannot punish countries for non-compliance.
1.5.2. Pro: International pressure has helped change rogue nations' behavior in the past.
1.5.2.1. Pro: Western influence [helped](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid#Western_influence_2) bring an end to apartheid in South Africa.
1.5.2.2. Pro: UN Security Council sanctions were [helpful](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/un-sanctions-mixed-record) in Libya, the former Yugoslavia, and Liberia.
1.6. Con: The UNFCCC may be sidelined as political priorities change.
1.6.1. Con: The vagaries of national politics makes the need for an international framework that can outlive elections all the more important.
1.6.2. Pro: The shift of power away from liberal leaders and towards conservative leaders such as Trump and Putin makes climate change less of a priority on the international stage.
1.7. Pro: The flexibility of international law makes it an appropriate medium to deal with an issue that is scientifically evolving and dynamic.
1.7.1. Pro: International law has proven to be [effective](https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/international-law-and-justice/index.html) at addressing the world's biggest issues.
1.7.1.1. Pro: International law has been effective at codifying norms to protect [human rights](https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/index.html).
1.7.1.2. Pro: International law has been effective at regulating the use of [nuclear energy](https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/atomic-energy/index.html).
1.7.2. Con: International treaties need to be incorporated at home, but the difficulty of climate politics can make this very difficult.
1.7.2.1. Pro: This can result in non-participation or withdrawal, as has happened in the USA.
1.7.2.1.1. Con: Nations should be disincentivized from withdrawing by establishing economic penalties.
1.7.2.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.4.
1.8. Con: -> See 1.5.1.1.